Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Senate Inquiry, Hearing Program 4th Nov 2011

Old 28th Mar 2013, 09:16
  #1341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,520
Sorry, off topic, but I read this headline and had a surreal image of Mr Kharon.....


Chainsaw-wielding man cuts up office

Updated 58 minutes ago
Map: Canberra 2600

A 34-year-old man has been arrested after he entered a Canberra office building brandishing a running chainsaw.
Chainsaw-wielding man cuts up office - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Sunfish is online now  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 10:32
  #1342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
A pathological organisation is one where:
- Information is hidden, buried and covered over
- 'Messengers' are shouted down, eliminated, bullied and silenced
- Responsibilities are shirked, avoided, abandoned and deflected
- Reports are discouraged, spun shredded or hidden
- Failures are covered up, buried or tucked away in a chamber pot
- New ideas are crushed, destroyed, flushed and shunned

So it's pretty easy to see what class the bumbling ninnies running the Regulator fit in to. Quite concerning actually. But obviously that's what the Government wants isn't it?
There was discussion earlier on DJ's best course of action. Has anybody on thoughts on tackling from a bullying and harassment standpoint? Has it been tried before?

I also believe the senate estimates should get data on casa oversight. Schedule, progress. Overdue etc. CMTs should have got in control now.
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 11:53
  #1343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Sunfish, Kharon is the sane one, he tends to mellow out by walking the dog and keeping the Styx houseboat in good working order. It is the Gobbledock that tends to cut loose with the chainsaw in Canberra. Maybe Gobbles mistook the ABC for Flyingfiends office?
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2013, 20:10
  #1344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
In my own defence M'lud.

Oleo –"Very entertaining video, but I don't believe that was Bankstown. Judging by the dancing style and robust uniforms it was the FNQ and NT Inspectors on audit and celebrating an operators Show Cause!"
Oleo you may not know: Gobbles is a secret agent (part time) for Willyleaks, he got that 'vision' at great personal risk, the security was hell he reckons. Seems the FAA have got the idea that the Brisbane training centre is a sham, designed to fool the ICAO boys. FF needed to run one 'real' training course to show the Yanks, this was it. All the boys in the 'vision' passed with non flying colours and honours in obfuscation. A couple achieved the highest merit points possible for correctly identifying primary pineapple planting locations (PPPL). But, you're right, the backdrop was modelled on the FNQ famous 'think tank' and made specially by the GWM wives (and/or partners) knitting club for the event.

Sunny – No mate, not me. Bloody Gobbledock – again. We bailed him out last night, Judge was very sympathetic once the case was explained. He said, and I quote "your response is perfectly understandable Mr. G. given the circumstances; any responsible citizen would have seen it as a moral duty". GD smiled slightly and whispered {– "taught the bugger to fly"}, then solemnly faced the judge for sentence. "Provided you are prepared to attempt only one office wrecking party each year" intoned the man, "you are free to go, the court is appalled at the treatment you received and praises your restraint; we are impressed that there was no damage done to the potted plants". I got fined a chocolate frog because of the chain saw teeth "not as sharp as they may be Mr. K". I ask you, where's the justice?

So, it's all calm again on the Styx, Minnie is making pineapple fritters for Gobbles. I think he quite enjoyed his trip to town, I've locked up the chainsaw – at least for the weekend. By the way – they both deny throwing pot plants at FF t'other day, it was soggy white paper from the chamber pots they reckon, just a little green about the edges, the impression of foliage was created using old cigar butts. They showed me one, quite realistic.

PS - Check Creamies last post on the Reg reform page. I'm still smiling, between Sunny and Creamie, it's a great start to the LWE.

Last edited by Kharon; 29th Mar 2013 at 23:57. Reason: Watch the Bloody split infinitives - Wodger that.
Kharon is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 02:47
  #1345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
Written AQONs 28/02/13:

PS - Check Creamies last post on the Reg reform page. I'm still smiling, between Sunny and Creamie, it's a great start to the LWE.
Gold Creamy..pure gold take no prisoners!

Coming back (briefly) to the written QONs and the Beaker answers for the 28/02/2013 public hearing, Senator Fawcett QON 2:
2. Explain the discrepancy between the answer he provided today (explaining their decision to not recover the FDR which inferred that the "reasonable" clause in the current document was the basis) given the standard which was in force at the time of the accident, which, if it did not provide that modification would have mandated recovery of the FDR.

ATSB response: The ATSB considers that the general provisions of paragraph 5.4 of the Annex as it stood at the time provided the necessary discretion to the ATSB in its conduct of the investigation.
So now we have established which version and amendment of Annex 13 was current at the time (9th Edition as amended by Amendments 11, 12-A and 12-B) we can safely say that this was what paragraph 5.4 read (my bold)…
5.4 The accident investigation authority shall have
independence in the conduct of the investigation and have
unrestricted authority over its conduct, consistent with the
provisions of this Annex. The investigation shall include:
a) the gathering, recording and analysis of all available
information on that accident or incident;
b) if appropriate, the issuance of safety recommendations;
c) if possible, the determination of the causes; and
d) the completion of the final report.
When possible, the scene of the accident shall be visited, the
wreckage examined and statements taken from witnesses.”

We now know that it (a) was possible and; (b) that Beaker’s final decision was based on purely fiscal reasons. Whether this decision was justified, in compliance and in the ‘spirit’ of paragraph 5.4 is very much open to debate??

There is however another ‘open issue’ at the time, the following is a quote from the ‘Preliminary Report January 2010’:
The ATSB has interviewed a number of witnesses and people who were associated with the occurrence, and is assessing the feasibility of recovering the aircraft Cockpit Voice and Flight Data recorders from the seabed.
Sort of open-ended statement made by the author, whom would I assume be the ‘Investigator In Charge’ (IIC)? So…
Q/ I wonder if the IIC would personally have considered ‘feasibility’ to also include the fiscal concerns of Chief Commissioner Beaker, especially given the high profile media coverage this occurrence had generated and the unique circumstances of a night ditching where everyone survived?

Given that the issue of recovering the CVR/FDR was under discussion well before the IIC voiced his concerns via email to Beaker (09/02/2010, reference 02 ATSB_Doc5_Web.pdf) about the stance that FF was taking… “I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support”;

Therefore futher questions:
(1) What was the IIC stance on the CVR/FDR issue?
(2) Was the IIC, aware at the time, that Beaker (according to the answer to the QON above) had justified his decision pursuant to paragraph 5.4 of Annex 13?
(3) If not when did the IIC become aware and was the IIC in agreement with this Beaker decision?

Because according to paragraph 5.5 and 5.6 of Annex 13…

Investigator-in-charge — Designation

5.5 The State conducting the investigation shall designate
the investigator-in-charge of the investigation and shall initiate
the investigation immediately.

Investigator-in-charge — Access and control

5.6 The investigator-in-charge shall have unhampered
access to the wreckage and all relevant material, including
flight recorders and ATS records, and shall have unrestricted
control over it to ensure that a detailed examination can be
made without delay by authorized personnel participating in
the investigation.”

….the IIC has ‘supreme control’ over the conduct of the investigation, wreckage recovery etc..etc…so was the IIC’s ‘head of power’ as per Annex 13 and the TSI Act compromised by both internal/external subjectively interested parties?

Anyway moving on down the written QONs (28/02/2013) we find a question (QON 4) from Senator X that must have been asked almost ‘tongue in cheek’ (my bold):
4. If, as proposed in your changes to Mandatory Reporting, the ATSB merely acts as a conduit to provide CASA with unrestricted access, why not merely reverse the roles to have the industry report to CASA and CASA pass on what they think should be investigated?

ATSB response: Under the proposed reforms the ATSB will maintain its full independence with respect to determining what to investigate. It will also maintain the accident and incident database which is used to conduct research and trend analysis. Adopting the above proposal would compromise the ATSB’s independence.
Although the concept of what Senator X suggests is in itself most disturbing, it would appear from the evidence presented thus far that this is effectively what is already happening and the bureau is no longer a fully independent transport investigator. Perhaps this is the underlying point that Senator X is making in asking this question??

Oh well off doing a Kelpie..enjoy your Easter LW/E!




Sarcs is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 07:00
  #1346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 468
Love these posts as I'm sure others do as well.

I can't help wondering in the light of the upcoming election whether the Shadow minister has been canvassed for comment or the like.

Anyone?
AEROMEDIC is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2013, 10:40
  #1347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
'Shadow minister' would mean he is a minister hiding within the shadow of a taxpayer trough. The only good politicians, from what we can tell, are the Senators who are gently lubricating CASA and Beakers sphincters for the mother of all pineapples (we hope).
As for the rest of the politicians, they are all bottom dwelling parasites who host on the taxpayers. A protected species in which cleverly tailored laws, morals, ethics and privileges wrap around them while the rest of us get shat on.

And as for those trough dwelling Pollies I speak of, that may be reading this thread as UITA pointed out, I have a special two word comment for you........
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 01:13
  #1348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
And who is the Shadow Minister? Why will they be any different to John Anderson and John Sharp (I think that's his name, the bloke who's on the board of Rex). The Regional Services portfolio usually goes to the NP leader who is also usually the Deputy PM. How much time or effort do you think will be put into aviation? Greg Searle was on the Senate Committee that looked at training and aviation and he was very alarmed after he heard some of the evidence. What influence did he have on the government's response to the final report?

Senator Fawcett is a knowledgable politician when it comes to aviation matters, but I don't think that he will have any significant influence in changes being made to how CASA and the ATSB do business if its not high on the new Government's agenda.

Do you really think politicians are going to bother reading PPRuNe when this is the typical stuff posted:

So, it's all calm again on the Styx, Minnie is making pineapple fritters for Gobbles. I think he quite enjoyed his trip to town, I've locked up the chainsaw – at least for the weekend. By the way – they both deny throwing pot plants at FF t'other day, it was soggy white paper from the chamber pots they reckon, just a little green about the edges, the impression of foliage was created using old cigar butts. They showed me one, quite realistic.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 04:59
  #1349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: America's 51st State
Posts: 189
Lookleft,

You're spot on!!
VH-MLE is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 05:52
  #1350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Devil suggestion vs satire

Sarcs,

Although the concept of what Senator X suggests is in itself most disturbing, it would appear from the evidence presented thus far that this is effectively what is already happening and the bureau is no longer a fully independent transport investigator. Perhaps this is the underlying point that Senator X is making in asking this question??
I reckon there is a big gap between asking a satirical "elephant in the room" question and actually proposing a course of action.

If you go back to the Report of the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee into Pilot training and airline safety; and Consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 which was published in June 2011, you will see that Senator X was about protecting reporters from adverse action by providing whistleblowers protections consistent with the Just Culture principles. Nothing has changed in regard to his attitude, but the CASA-dominated ATSB has been shifting the ground all along with no fanfare or real debate.

So how disturbed are most pilots with the concept that reports that they make in the interests of improving safety are slid straight to CASA as unprotected self-incriminating evidence for administrative action?

Stay Alive

Last edited by 4dogs; 30th Mar 2013 at 05:53.
4dogs is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 06:01
  #1351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 122
revisiting a little history

just had a thought about that inquiry.

it was running about in the middle of the Pel-Air saga, so the evidence from CASA and the ATSB would have been given in the light of what they had already decided to do with the Pel-Air scenario.

i suddenly feel the need to revisit the evidence in light of what has now been revealed by the current inquiry...
scrubba is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 06:52
  #1352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
4dogs and scrubba both good points that you make, especially the fact that Pel-Air was set in motion with an apparently pre-determined outcome by FF and the bureau while the previous Senate inquiry was still in play!

On the subject of Senator X still pushing the protected reporting and just culture barrow, I couldn't agree more and he has been consistent on that issue throughout this inquiry..you only need look at Q3 from the written QONs for the 28/02/13:
3. What access to incident reporting does the ATSB currently grant CASA?


o
What information in a report would usually be provided? Does this include personal or other identifying information?


ATSB response: Details of the information disclosed to CASA are provided on the ATSB’s website as follows:
Information disclosed to CASA
Oral and SMS report of Immediately Reportable Matters
Oral and SMS advice of the occurrence of immediately reportable matters (IRMs – accidents and serious incidents) are provided to CASA as soon as the ATSB is informed.



The advice may contain details such as operator names, registration numbers, times, dates and locations. The ATSB will try, where possible, to avoid directly identifying individuals.



Daily report
CASA is provided with a redacted daily report of all incidents entered into the ATSB database. The redacted summary is a generic description of the event notified.



Depending on the workload for data entry, this may be provided 1 to 3 weeks after the occurrence of the event. The notification will include aircraft registration, so that CASA has enough detail to gather its own information about the occurrence.



Aggregate summaries
An automated weekly transfer of summaries of information entered in the ATSB’s database during that week is provided to CASA. The aggregate summary does not include identifying information such as aircraft registration.



o


Does the ATSB provide any conditions on access to this information?


ATSB response: The information is provided with acknowledgement of CASA’s enforcement policy concerning the use of safety information.



The ATSB is not aware of any circumstance where notification information has been relied upon by CASA to take enforcement action other than where the ATSB requested assistance in an instance where a person provided false and misleading information.



o


Is the ATSB aware of any limitations CASA puts on using this

information? For example, could it be used to investigate an involved individual?



ATSB response: CASA may use the information supplied in an ATSB forwarded notification to inform itself of matters that require investigation by CASA so that CASA may obtain its own evidence where there is a need to take safety action.

Again I don't think the Senator is particularly interested in the answer. Other than the fact that it is just further spin from Beaker and by now no-one will ever believe the guy again as he has lost all credibility in the eyes of the Senators and the many observers/participants of this inquiry.


I also feel that Senator X and Senator Heffernan have never forgotten how the outcome and recommendations of the previous inquiry were basically ignored or subterfuged by the minister and DOIT. Hence the reason that the Senator's are using this inquiry as a chance to rectify past wrongs!

I also find it intriguing that the committee is still fielding submissions from the industry..take a look at submission 20 from the flying docs, it was submitted 19/03/2013...hmm now that is interesting??

Maybe the Senators are actually consulting with industry..maybe??..perhaps??

Last edited by Sarcs; 30th Mar 2013 at 07:01. Reason: Back to my beginner's guide to cryptology
Sarcs is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 11:40
  #1353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Australia
Age: 49
Posts: 547
Sarcs,
This is the page I think the ATSB QON was referring to:
Aviation Accident or Incident Notification

Aviation Accident or Incident Notification

However, what about REPCON's?
REPCON - Aviation Confidential Reporting Scheme

REPCON - Aviation Confidential Reporting Scheme

It states:
"REPCON may use the de-identified version of the report to issue an information-brief or alert bulletin to a person or organisation, including CASA, which is in a position to take safety action in response to the safety concern."

In the QON they state:
The advice may contain details such as operator names, registration numbers, times, dates and locations. The ATSB will try, where possible, to avoid directly identifying individuals.
Now if the REPCON should have been included as it states above. That statement could be at odds with the confidentiality required.

REPCON Aviation is established under the Air Navigation (Confidential Reporting) Regulations 2006 and allows any person who has an aviation safety concern to report it to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) confidentially. Personal information will not be disclosed unless permission is granted by the individual concerned. Only de-identified information will be used for safety action.
I seem to recall it was the REPCON system that some groups were concerned with and how information was not sufficiently de identified allowing the person(s) to be identified?
halfmanhalfbiscuit is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 12:38
  #1354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,395
All of which says....do not talk to anybody without a lawyer's advise and preferrably present.
CASA has cut itself off from the industry and dragged the ATSB with it.
The corruption is palpable, both organisations have demonstrated they cannot be trusted. If its not already happening, how long before the brown paper bags over the counter Friday afternoon? Just look what happened in NSW when a blind eye was turned to corruption. How long before those at the bottom see how those at the top are getting away with it so they may just as well wade in and help themselves?

Last edited by thorn bird; 30th Mar 2013 at 12:50.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 21:33
  #1355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,520
It now has to be assumed that anything the ATSB is told will be reported to CASA by the ATSB in sufficient detail to identify the pilot. Once the registration is known it is a simple matter to peruse the Maintenance release and in the case of a company or hired aircraft, the booking or task logs.

Even easier, CASA may request details of the flight plans of the aircraft concerned for the period under investigation from Air Services Australia which will identify the pilot. There are no end of methods that can be used to identify the pilot once the registration, or even perhaps simply the make, model, time and location are known.

Note: Yes I know you alll know that, but I'm hoping someone useful might read this.

Lookleft:

And who is the Shadow Minister? Why will they be any different to John Anderson and John Sharp (I think that's his name, the bloke who's on the board of Rex). The Regional Services portfolio usually goes to the NP leader who is also usually the Deputy PM. How much time or effort do you think will be put into aviation? Greg Searle was on the Senate Committee that looked at training and aviation and he was very alarmed after he heard some of the evidence. What influence did he have on the government's response to the final report?
At the risk of being long winded, this is how Government works.


1. Ministers are very very busy people. It is a hard job and Ministers have very little spare time - which is why they have public servants to do the detail work. Ministers and Governments make POLICY.

2. Ministers only operate from ADVICE which comes from a Public servant. That is why you constantly hear the words: "I am advised that....", "My advice is.......", "According to my advice......". The reason they operate by reference to advice is that they don't have the time or technical expertise to nut out a response to a particular issue. Doing something without a brief is highly dangerous because the Minister can't flick the blame onto a Public servant who advised him. .For example, the former NSW mines minister MacDonald is allegedly in trouble with the Corruption commission because he CANNOT produce a brief from the Public service recommending he grant Eddy Obied a mining lease.

3. The people who provide the advice are public servants who have the time and technical expertise to sort out:

(a) what the heck is going on?

(b) What should the Minister do about it? They do that by referring to the Governments policy.

(c) The Public Servant prepares a written BRIEF to the Minister asking him to DO SOMETHING.

4. The Brief to the Minister will be no more than Two A4 pages long, perhaps with supporting documentation such as a speech to deliver or a letter to someone to sign. The art of Brief writing is to get a succinct summary of the background, analysis and a recommendation onto no more than Two single sided A4 pages and preferably only One.

5. A Brief follows a set path. Say you write to the Minister, your letter will be opened by a Ministerial advisor. The letter gets sent to the Departmental Secretary who notes it and passes it on to the head of the section of the Department concerned. He sends it to the head of the sub section and so on until it arrives on the desk of the poor bugger who has to sort the matter out.

6 When the poor bugger sorts it out, he writes a Brief that goes up the same ladderr and each section head or department head initials the brief, meaning they approve it. A brief can go up and back down the approval chain many times before everyone judges it is exactly right. Finally the Department Secretary approves it and hands it to the Minister.

7. As I said earlier each brief is written with the objective of requesting that the Minister do something. Typical recommendations are:

"That you sign the attached letter" (to someone about something)

"That you note" ( because you are going to cop a parliamentary or media question about something, and you need to know these facts).

"That you approve something" (we want you to exercise your ministerial power under an Act of Parliament)

So when you "write to the Minister" about some bloke in CASA who had harsh words to you in Oodnadatta last week your letter is first catalogued, then passed right down the Departmental food chain to the very guy who spoke to you and he gets to write the Ministers reply. Now this is all a pain in the backside for everyone concerned because it makes unnecessary work.

As many people have found out, the Public service can be occasionally vindictive when the bona fides of their actions are called into question and they never forget. Your letter and the brief and response are on file forever and it will be pulled out and read the next time you request an approval for something, and of course it will influence the outcome.

In other words, you are expected by the Public service to cop it sweet and not to make waves. You may be branded a nutter or serial complainer and the Public service will exercise its revenge, perhaps years later.

Of course if Fifty unconnected people write to the Minister about the behaviour of a public servant on multiple occasions then action will be taken. On the other hand if a Public servant does something praiseworthy then write to the Minister because everyone from the Department Secretary down the food chain gets a big tick after their name and the letter goes on someones file as evidence of their good performance.

So back to the original question: Will a new Minister do something about CASA, ATSB and all? Short answer: NO. How could he when he has to take advice from the very people you are complaining about?

The only real threat to CASA and the current regime comes from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet who are the very dedicated public servants who keep the rest of the service in line. If there was a national scandal that attracted public interest (and lost votes) then the PM might act. If a sufficiently large, diverse and credible number of letters to the PM started appearing then the Department of PM &C might act. They are the only ones with sufficient authority, drive and intelligence to cut through the multiple defensive layers of legal and technical BS that have been built up around CASA for generations.

In case you are wondering, I had the priviledge of working in the public service for a few years and 99% of Public servants are hard working, intelligent, poorly paid and incorruptible people who have the best interest of the country to heart and do their best to make the unwieldy system we have built work. They taught me how to write a brief for which I am ever grateful.

Last edited by Sunfish; 30th Mar 2013 at 21:49.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 22:31
  #1356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Physician , heal thyself.

Dolan- Hansard – 25/02/11. "We also believe that our existing confidential reporting system offers an additional mechanism for ensuring that safety information is not suppressed for fear of the consequences, and perhaps we need to put more effort into publicising that scheme to give it its full effect." My bold,
McCormick – Hansard – 25/02/11. "There could have been a view in the past that ATSB and CASA were perhaps not going in the same direction. We certainly are these days, but one of the direct outputs of that is that when the ATSB—bearing in mind the caveats as I have said are around their own transport safety and investigation act—becomes aware of an issue that is going to result in a recommendation to CASA to take action or to investigate something, they inform us of that and then we conduct a parallel investigation ourselves. My bold,
Seems to me, the sinister irony within these paragraphs could do with a briefing to someone. We can only hope someone appoints a Fawcett look alike competition winner as 'Junior Minister' for aviation.
Kharon is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2013, 22:41
  #1357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 56
Posts: 560
Sunfish, you forgot one other small point when it comes to 'threat to the regime' - Two smoking holes. That is likely to 'change' the regime. Not the most desirable method for making change at CASA but this will probably be the most likely method.
my oleo is extended is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 01:01
  #1358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,520
Agreed Oleo, Two or Three smoking holes was what I was thinking when I wrote of a "national scandal" as a regime changing event.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 02:37
  #1359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,395
Aint it sad that here we are almost wishing for an event that 99.999% of us strive to ensure never happens, happens.
Is this the only event that can affect reform in a moribond, self serving, corrupt organisation?.
Must this event occur before those sociopaths that infect its upper echelons are weeded out, the them and us culture that prevails consigned to the dustbin of failed policies enabling Industry and regulator to work together in a common goal of foster and promote not just safety, but the industry itself.

Last edited by thorn bird; 31st Mar 2013 at 02:41.
thorn bird is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2013, 02:39
  #1360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,732
"Passing strange" volume two!

Kharon :

McCormick – Hansard – 25/02/11. "There could have been a view in the past that ATSB and CASA were perhaps not going in the same direction. We certainly are these days, but one of the direct outputs of that is that when the ATSB—bearing in mind the caveats as I have said are around their own transport safety and investigation act—becomes aware of an issue that is going to result in a recommendation to CASA to take action or to investigate something, they inform us of that and then we conduct a parallel investigation ourselves."
Yep there is sure some golden moments in that Hansard but there is even more irony, spin and obfuscation, given what we now know, in the QONs for the 25/02/11 public hearing.

Which begs so many questions that one really doesn’t know where to start …but I’ll give it a crack…

Firstly this statement from the DAS above… “becomes aware of an issue that is going to result in a recommendation to CASA to take action or to investigate something, they inform us of that and then we conduct a parallel investigation ourselves.”

And further backed up by the DAS here:
Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Committee
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE AND WRITTEN QUESTIONS
Pilot Training Inquiry 25 February 2011
1
Question No.: CASA 1
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: ATSB/CASA investigations
Hansard Page/s: Written Question
Senator Xenophon asked:
When conducting a compliance investigation of an aviation event that is also subject to an ATSB investigation, how does CASA avoid any perception that it could potentially compromise the ATSB’s independence and potentially affecting the free flow of safety information to them?

Answer:
CASA and the ATSB have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that expressly provides for both organisations to avoid any impediments to each other’s functions.

The MOU is published on the ATSB website.
Ok got that?? We can now probably all agree that in context the Pel-Air Norfolk ditching was the first official test of the new MOU 2010 (i.e. ‘test case’) and a new détente between FF and the bureau (which I might add they failed miserably!).

So the ‘passing strange’ questions in light of the above statement and several AQONs from the 25/02/11 hearing..
  • Why, given the statement above and the fact that the MOU had been in force for over a year, did FF instigate a ‘parallel investigation’ and ‘Special Audit’ almost immediately upon being notified of the accident by the ATSB? Surely this indicates a hidden sinister agenda and lack of trust by FF for the ATSB to make a preliminary assessment of the accident in an unbiased and independent manner?
Coming back to the DAS statement and Kharon’s highlights…becomes aware of an issue that is going to result in a recommendation to CASA to take action or to investigate something...” in light of which it would be fair to assume that even 15 months after the Norfolk ditching that FF were still expecting (as you would according to the TSI Act and past bureau practice) to receive a ‘SR’ for the bureau’s significantly researched and notified ‘Critical Safety Issue’.
  • So was this the reason why the ATSB investigation ground to a halt (especially given that an investigation of this stature would normally take 12 to 15 months to complete)? And was the inquiry the reason why the ‘CSI’ remained a ‘CSI’ and subsequently unaddressed by a ‘SR’ for over two and half years before being downgraded to ‘Minor’?
All ‘passing strange’ indeed?? Oh well off doing a Kelpie…

Note: The Senate Inquiry was referred to the Senate on the 30th September 2010… http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=rat_ctte/completed_inquiries/2010-13/pilots_2010/info.htm … which was some 3 months after FF sent their CAIR 09/3 to the ATSB and nearly 2 months after the ‘Chamber Report’ was sent to the DAS…the timeline here is very interesting??

Last edited by Sarcs; 31st Mar 2013 at 02:43.
Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.